Biology (Bindel) vs Ideology (Webberley) on the Hodge-Cast

I don't think she's been brainwashed at all. This is just the latest (and most lucrative) in a series of money-making schemes she's been involved in.

What makes you think she's not a psychopath?

said that she was having to rethink her atheism, because she became convinced she was in the presence of evil.

Thats a very interesting point. She doesn’t seem to fit the criteria for a female psychopath but her total lack of genuine empathy for people harmed by this ideology is striking. She professes huge empathy for the people seeking her drugs though.

Maybe she is so totally brainwashed by this ideology that she is convinced she is doing good but too dim to take on board the new information about the harm caused?

Catching up on it now - debating with Webberley is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. She is also quite thick.

On the Lesbian Podcast (I think straight women can listen, I hope <grin>) this week, Julie Bindel briefly mentioned the debate, and said that she was having to rethink her atheism, because she became convinced she was in the presence of evil.

I don't think Webberley is evil (or if she is, it's a by-product) ; she's just extremely stupid. She has no capacity for abstract or conceptual thinking.

That Reddit thread is a joy to behold 😁

Catching up on it now - debating with Webberley is like trying to nail jelly to a wall. She is also quite thick.

On the Lesbian Podcast (I think straight women can listen, I hope <grin>) this week, Julie Bindel briefly mentioned the debate, and said that she was having to rethink her atheism, because she became convinced she was in the presence of evil.

I don't think Webberley is evil (or if she is, it's a by-product) ; she's just extremely stupid. She has no capacity for abstract or conceptual thinking.

Six minutes in and Webberley's already denying that women are an oppressed group 😭

At one point early on in the debate with Helen Joyce she says trans-women are men. I was surprised HJ didn't react to this.

Right at the beginning Webberley says that gender identity is "an identity" and then 39 minutes in she says that "transgender isn't an identity". She can't even keep track of her own ramblings.

I honestly find difficult to unravel what you are saying, much like Helen Webberley's pronouncements.

Don't beat yourself up. Like I said from the start, understanding depends on individual limitations. For example A hard science mentality emphasises objective, quantifiable, and replicable data. A soft science mentality focuses on understanding human behaviour and society through methodologies that may be less rigid, relying more on interpretation and dealing with the ambiguity of human subjects. So perhaps you are more of a 'hard science' thinker?

"That's one possible interpretation of the behaviour of a young child who, in Webberley's example, decides to join the line of boys if they are a girl and vice versa. Its weakness as an explanation is that it relies on the hypothetical existence of "gender identity"."

Are you seriously suggesting social and cultural differences between men & women don't exist?

"There are estimates for the number of people born with DSDs/VSDs. Most of these very rare conditions would not result in any ambiguity at all about the sex of a person in a "social context" or any other context, including when a child is born. Start on this page:"

Outside of the normal range doesn't just refer to DSD's. Morphology has huge variation within a sex that's even greater between sexes.

"Holly Lawford-Smith has suggested that it is hypothetically possible for a female to successfully "become" a man but that it is not possible for a male to successfully "become" a woman, ie. to be capable of identifying as the opposite sex. That is not to say that any such female would necessarily "pass" as a man in a social setting."

Yep, that whole take was made on the assumption gender identity is based on 'feelings' which is flawed. Firstly, identification is based on associations….an association with one's intrinsic inclinations that are most likely personality trait influenced. Being aware of self inclinations & interests is hardly a feeling but an observation of one's behavioural tendencies that applied to social categories become a gender identity as in Webberley's example of children in the playground.

I honestly find difficult to unravel what you are saying, much like Helen Webberley's pronouncements.

In the Example Helen Webberley gave of a child observing two distinct groups (males & females) in the playground & categorising themselves according to who they thought they had more in common with pretty much sums up gender identification.

That's one possible interpretation of the behaviour of a young child who, in Webberley's example, decides to join the line of boys if they are a girl and vice versa. Its weakness as an explanation is that it relies on the hypothetical existence of "gender identity".

people don't usually 'verify' their categorisations via gonad or chromosomal tests how would you know those 'readings' are generally reliable ? Self evidently, biological variation exists outside of normal ranges not to mention technology has provided for confounding alterations. As far as there being only a minority of cases that are outside the normal ranges its impossible to know the true extent given we haven't tested for billions of people.

There are estimates for the number of people born with DSDs/VSDs. Most of these very rare conditions would not result in any ambiguity at all about the sex of a person in a "social context" or any other context, including when a child is born. Start on this page:
www.dsdfamilies.org/parents/what-dsd/brief-overview/conditions

Only two DSDs are relevant to potential ambiguity about sex in a social setting: 46,XY DSD with female phenotype and 46,XX DSD with male phenotype.

(I have not included 5ARD as it is phenomenally rare, children go through male puberty and would then be perceived as male plus in the unlikely event that a child was born with 5ARD in the UK they would be subject to genetic testing so would be raised as male from birth.)

• 46,XY DSD with female phenotype (e.g., CAIS): Prevalence of 6.4 per 100,000 female births (~3.2 per 100,000 total births), representing ~25% of 46,XY DSD cases. These individuals are typically raised and identified as female socially, despite XY chromosomes.

• 46,XX DSD with male phenotype (e.g., XX testicular DSD): Prevalence of 1 in 20,000 males (~2.5 per 100,000 total births), representing ~20-30% of 46,XX DSD cases. These are usually raised and identified as male, despite XX chromosomes.

References:

• Berglund et al. (2016). Incidence and prevalence of 46,XY females. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. Link
• MedlinePlus. 46,XX testicular DSD. Link
• Österman et al. (2024). Prevalence of DSD in Switzerland. medRxiv. Link

Those figures translate to an estimated total of less than 3,000 people in the UK from babies to adults age 85+

The number of adults who identify as transgender in the UK might have been possible to estimate if the questions in the most recent census had not been so confusing. All we know is that the census provides an over-estimate given that the highest returns are for boroughs with a high percentage of people who do not have English as their first language.

"The Census 2021 estimate is that 0.54% of people in England and Wales aged 16 years or over had a gender identity different from their sex registered at birth. The majority (93.46%) of people responded that they had a gender identity the same as their sex registered at birth and 6.00% of people did not answer the question. The 2022 Census in Scotland found that 0.44% of people aged 16 years or over were trans or had a trans history."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/genderidentity/articles/census2021genderidentityestimatesforenglandandwalesadditionalguidanceonuncertaintyandappropriateuse/2025-03-26

This gives an estimate of 289,400 people who identify as transgender aged 16 or over. The vast majority of whom will not "pass" unambiguously as the opposite sex.

Estimates based on self-reporting are that 24% are "never clocked" as either transgender or as their actual sex.

https://transequality.org/sites/default/files/docs/usts/USTS-Full-Report-Dec17.pdf

However, IMHO this is very likely to be an over-estimate, given that the majority of people on social media who identify as transgender and who claim to "always pass" do not in fact remotely pass online when they are not using "filters" and/or where their height is apparent and/or they speak.

Being generous, let's say 10% of females and 5% of males, giving a total of 43,400 people aged 16 or over in the UK who unambiguously "pass" as the opposite sex in social situations.

TBH this still seems a rather high number, from personal experience of meeting people in real life who I was later surprised to learn identified as transgender.

This made sense of what at the time had seemed something strange about the people concerned. When I learned that they had been medicalised to mimic the opposite sex it made sense, as I realised that what had seemed strange was a mismatch between their behaviour and what I had erroneously understood to be their sex.

Holly Lawford-Smith has suggested that it is hypothetically possible for a female to successfully "become" a man but that it is not possible for a male to successfully "become" a woman, ie. to be capable of identifying as the opposite sex. That is not to say that any such female would necessarily "pass" as a man in a social setting.

Trans Men Are Men (But Transwomen Are Not Women)
https://hollylawford-smith.org/trans-men-are-men-but-transwomen-are-not-women/

Similarly, someone might "pass" as the opposite sex but not actually identify as the opposite sex. Such as people who are androgynous, which is to do with perception of appearance, presentation and possibly behaviour, independent of any claimed "gender identity". Still likely to be very few and far between.

Are you suggesting that behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypical feminine manner is the definition of being female and behaving or "presenting" in a stereotypically masculine manner is the definition of being male?

Its typical behaviours not stereotypical behaviours as I explained in the quote you linked.

In terms of self definition as I mentioned upthread that depends what characteristics an individual identifies more with as in their reproductive characteristics or their behavioural inclinations. In the Example Helen Webberley gave of a child observing two distinct groups (males & females) in the playground & categorising themselves according to who they thought they had more in common with pretty much sums up gender identification.

"If so, obviously untrue as behaviours or "presentation" do not define one's sex in "social situations" or any other situation.

Or are you suggesting that stereotypical feminine and masculine behaviours and "presentation" in "social situations" are cues that other people use when they identify someone as female or male?"

You tell me. Can you describe what characteristics/cues you use to distinguish males from females in your day to day interactions with people whose reproductive characteristics you don't know given you usually can't see their gonads or chromosomes?

"If so, true. These cues are generally reliable and are generally correctly interpreted. In very rare instances there may be incorrect identification of sex but, as noted above, that does not change the sex of the person observed."

As I mentioned upthread, given people don't usually 'verify' their categorisations via gonad or chromosomal tests how would you know those 'readings' are generally reliable ? Self evidently, biological variation exists outside of normal ranges not to mention technology has provided for confounding alterations. As far as there being only a minority of cases that are outside the normal ranges its impossible to know the true extent given we haven't tested for billions of people.

As Bindel made the point in the podcast, its impossible to distinguish between the dangerous & non dangerous, the same goes for morphology given the extent of which diversity exists.

"Androgynous people are still male or female and their sex is not dependent on how they are recognised in a social situation, which might anyway differ between the people they encounter."

Certainly not their reproductive sex is dependent on how they are recognised but that's different to whether they or others consider themselves as men/women socially.